Why make a movie of The Man From U.N.C.L.E.? The original TV series ended its4-season run in 1968, and the last time the characters were seen on screen was areunion made-for-TV movie in 1983. The series generated a large amount of spinoffmaterial during and just after its run such as novels and comic books, but thosedried up decades ago. You’d be hard pressed to find episodes of the show airing insyndication, and only dedicated fans and nostalgists would be deliberately seekingit out on streaming services or physical media. It missed the trend of strip miningdozens of 60’s and 70’s era TV shows for major movie adaptations in the 90’s(remember when The Mod Squad was a movie?), and Hollywood has moved on to horrorfilms and comic books. It’s not a star vanity project as the first Mission:Impossible was for Tom Cruise. Coincidentally, that series just released its fifthentry not two weeks ago, part of a spy film resurgence this year along with MatthewVaughn’s Kingsman: The Secret Service released in February and the upcoming returnof 007 in Spectre. So given all of that, why make a movie of The Man FromU.N.C.L.E.?

The answer is simple: style, baby, style.

Well of course in Warner Bros. case the answer is more likely “because the rightswere sitting around and we wanted to use this existing IP.” But corporate reasonsaside, the powers that be found a kindred spirit for the material in director GuyRitchie. Ritchie, like Vaughn, made a name for himself with his energetic andstylish take on the British gangster film, bursting onto the scene with Lock, Stockand Two Smoking Barrels and becoming a dorm room hero with Snatch. He then ended upin big budget blockbuster territory with the Sherlock Holmes films starring RobertDowney Jr. Those films attempted to reinvent the character while keeping him in hisnative era, combining a steampunkish 19th century with a bareknuckle laddishaesthetic. It had Ritchie’s sense of fun and energy, but always seemed like an oddfit.

How refreshing, then, that the swinging 60’s world of U.N.C.L.E. fits the director’sstyle like a well tailored suit (with or without a bow tie). The film is a loveletter to the style of the 60s (literally-there are many discussions and at leastone argument about clothing) without falling into kitsch or nostalgic name-checking.Ritchie’s energy and love of cocksure characters shine brightly here, but with sucha confidence that the film is paced less like a 21st century tent pole and more likea European hangout film from the era. There’s more Cinecitta than Marvel in here.

A lion’s share of the film’s charm comes from its not-yet-stars-but-should-be cast.Henry Cavill, best known as the brooding Superman in the dour DC comics verse,brings a deadpan confidence to Napoleon Solo (a name given to the character by noneother than Bond’s Ian Fleming), ex-professional thief co-opted by the CIA. ArmieHammer, he of The Social Network’s Winklevii, puts on a thick Russian accent and aheaping helping of seething intensity as Illya, a KGBeast with a hidden heart ofgold. That heart is slowly but surely melted by the stunning Alicia Vikander asGaby, an East Germany refugee with an estranged nuclear scientist father, naturally.Vikander’s performance is 180 degrees from her brilliant portrayal of an artificialmecha in Ex Machina earlier this year, and her Gaby belongs in the company ofCharlize Theron in Mad Max: Fury Road and Rebecca Ferguson in Mission Impossible:Rogue Nation, this summer’s honorable pantheon of leading ladies in action filmsthat steal the film from their male counterparts. Each character has an underlyingdarkness within them that lends the film a bitter edge laced through the bubbly 60sdecor: Solo bears a cruel indifference toward his colleagues as well as his enemies,Illya struggles to contain his murderous rage, and Gaby…well, that would betelling.

The plot, such as it is, revolves around Gaby’s aforementioned nuclear scientistfather being captured by a corporation that acts as a front for a nefariousorganization (one assumes this to be T.H.R.U.S.H. since this is an U.N.C.L.E. originstory, but they’re never mentioned by that name) who intend to use the scientist’swork in order to mass produce nuclear weapons. So it’s time to go undercover, findevidence, and so on and so forth. In the best Hitchcockian tradition, the plot isboth overly complex and incredibly simple, giving just enough framework to hang theadventure on. Who cares about plot machinations when you can watch Elizabeth Debickitear into the lead villain role (a role which originally was written to be a man,and was smartly switched by writers Ritchie and Lionel Wigram)? The film might belight on story depth, but gives the requisite “torture-the-hero” scene a torturer(played by Sylvester Groth) who delivers a surprisingly credible and affectingbackstory.

Ritchie delivers a couple of well shot and inventively staged action sequences, and thefilm is peppered with stylistic flourishes that keep it fun while never turning itinto a pastiche. Tying it all together is a marvelous score by Daniel Pemberton (digthose flute solos) as well as some choice deep cut songs from the period. Hopefullythe film will find a following this weekend, because although everyone may be askingwhy they made a movie of The Man From U.N.C.L.E., the answer is because it’s just somuch fun.

This article originally appeared on Pixcelation.com on Aug. 15th, 2015.